Moving Earth +Moon out to a orbit near Jupiter // Engineering

by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface: The Sun has gone Red Giant Phase, and will kill all life on Earth in the next 10,000 years. As of 2022, I reckon we have 1,000 years to establish a permanent human colony on Europa, and then move as much as possible to Europa in the 10,000 years. But the question remains, do we leave Earth dead to be consumed by the Sun as it gets larger and larger, or do we attempt to engineer a rescue of the entire planet Earth and move it out to near Jupiter? Is it possible to move Earth to be near Jupiter? That this the question this book attempts to answer, the feasibility of moving Earth.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone camera picture of a NASA website showing the asteroids Didymos and Dimorphos.

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Dec 31, 2022, 1:22:11 AM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now correct me if I am wrong on any of this description of NASA's recent ramming of Dimorphos with a satellite and slowing its orbit and moving closer to Didymos.

That would entail ramming Dimorphos in its forward motion in Space. A head-on collision so to speak. And if the satellite had hit Dimorphos from the rear-end, it would have pushed Dimorphos away from Didymos, instead of closer into Didymos? Am I correct in that perspective?

Let us say I am correct in that perspective, would entail that if we wanted to move Didymos out to a Mars orbit, we need to slam Dimorphos from the rear at a moment when it is nearest to the "rear of Didymos" so when Dimorphos crashes into Didymos, it sends Didymos out of the Asteroid belt and on the path to meeting Mars.

If that is correct, then for Earth and Moon plan. This is Cosmic Billard Balls. So for the Moon we do a ramming from in front-- a head on collision to make Moon fall in orbit closer to Earth. We keep making the Moon fall closer and closer to Earth, then when the time is opportune we exert a nuclear missile blast on the rear end of Moon so that it runs into the Earth from the rear and pushes Earth out of orbit and onto the path of Mars orbit.

I suspect the mechanics of this is similar to rockets being launched to intercept Mars, so that we can use the experience of getting satellites or capsules from Earth to Mars.

We probably will have a permanent colony on Mars long before we figure out all the intricacies of moving Earth itself.

I hope to save all the water on Earth as it is moved into a Mars orbit. To do this, we have to slam the Moon into a Continent mass rather than a ocean.. Do not worry about plants and animals, all will have died long time ago due to solar radiation of Sun gone Red Giant.

Now I forgot the surface area of the Moon as it slams into Earth. Would Russia and Asia land mass easily cover the surface area of Moon as it "falls into Earth" and pushes Earth into a orbit to trek to Mars?

I hope the collision saves most all the mass of Moon and Earth. And it maybe a shape of a dumbbell Oo for some time until Earth slowly consolidates the joined Moon.

I hope no more nuclear missiles are needed to get Earth+Moon out to Mars orbit. Everytime we use nuclear missiles we lose a lot of mass in the blast.

Of course, we have to experiment with Didymos and Dimorphos and see if we can pull that off-- a Mars orbit. If successful on Didymos, I would say -- all clear for Moon + Earth.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Dec 31, 2022, 3:27:03 AM (22 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
I do not mind BWR's antagonistic and error filled post in my thread, for sometimes a physics bullshiters post in the King of Science thread "lubricates" other physics bullshiters to the disgust of those that really know physics, and that disgust causes them to fill in some facts and knowledge that AP is unaware of. So, well, make use of bullshiters like BWR. They could cause a insight from others.

Well, I cannot seem to find BWR "bwr fml" last failure fiasco in full, just snippets, which probably tells me that bwr deleted his original post, concerning the force of gravity. So I post bwr full post below in case he tries to delete it. In the prior bwr fiasco, BWR always draws together a muddled and error filled post for BWR only intent is to smear discredit AP. BWR is a physics failure, for in his April or late March post about why AP lithium battery drone will not fly to the Space Station, according to BWR, it lacks the total energy. But then the calculations by BWR is ESCAPE VELOCITY, rockets blasting off. A drone battery machine is not blasting off to get to ISS but simply "stepping its way to ISS". In the case of Earth+Moon trekking out to Mars orbit is another case of "stepping into a new orbit, not blasting to Mars".

BWR, never heard of Escape Velocity in gravity. On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:29:19 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote: > Remember you were claiming a lithium battery could fly your drone to the international space station
10m views

BWR, in sci.math-- never heard of Escape Velocity in gravity.
On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:29:19 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> Remember you were claiming a lithium battery could fly your drone to the international space station. And when calculations showed
> that the battery did not have enough energy to lift itself that high you countered by claiming it didn't need any energy to get there,
> it could just float up there. Turns out that someone has actually done a little bit of the actual real math on building floating structures.
>
> https://www.wired.com/story/can-you-make-a-hollow-metal-sphere-so-big-that-it-floats/
>

Remember a few weeks ago, the BWR wanted to discuss AP's plan to go to the Arctic magnetic north pole where the greatest amount of uplift from Magnetic Lines of Force. And test out the Mars helicopter of NASA, a duplicate and see how high it will fly. And while there, to test out if a balloon type structure will utililize those magnetic lines of forces. But BWR never heard of escape-velocity in physics.

So, here we have a BWR, failed in science and pretending to know science, yet, not even knowing what the hell is Escape Velocity from Earth surface. Look it up BWR, look up Escape Velocity before you next poop a pile of poop in sci.math. Look it up, BWR and tell us if those balloons sent up into the upper atmosphere are going at Escape Velocity.

On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 1:23:44 AM UTC-6, bwr fml wrote:
> Let's skip most of what you have thought about and get to the real issue:
>
> Approximately how much energy would be needed to move the earth from
> the current position to the position of mars, pretty much ignoring everything else
>
> distance from earth to mars 9.6*10^7 kilometers
>
> gravitational force of the sun on the earth 3.5*10^22 newtons
>
> 9.6*10^7 kilometers * 3.5*10^22 newtons = 3.36*10^33 joules
>
> Note that is assuming the gravitational force does not decrease
> with distance from the sun. To use a decreasing gravitational
> force you will perhaps need to do an integral. But trying to do that
> sounds like it is way beyond what you have demonstrated thus far.
> Using a constant should still give us a reasonable starting approximation..
>
> So that is the energy you need applied directly to the earth.
> But how much energy is that really, is that a LOT or not so much?
> Well, think of something that has a LOT of energy in it
>
> 1 kilogram of tnt = 4.184*10^6 joules
>
> So how many kilograms of tnt are needed to do this
> (IF and ONLY IF we could directly apply all that energy
> in the right direction and do so uniformly)
>
> 3.36*10^33/(4.184*10^6) = 8*10^26 kilograms of tnt
> = 8*10^23 tons of tnt
> = 8*10^17 mega-tons of tnt
>
> So you need just a bit less than a million million million
> metric tons of tnt to move the earth out to mars.
> And you have to convert all that tnt into a nice uniform
> force on the entire earth for the entire trip.
>
> But how much is a million million million tons?
> Is that a lot or not so much? It sounds like it is a lot.
> Well, worldwide food production of the entire earth in a year
> is about 4 mega-tons each year currently.
> And (8*10^17 mega-tons/(4 mega-tons/year)=2*10^17 years.
> So if all the food production currently was magically turned
> into tnt and we did that every year at the current production
> rate then in only 2*10^17 years you would have enough
> tnt to lift the earth from the current orbit to the orbit of mars.
>
> You must check all these calculations very carefully.

BWR always ends his post as above-- because the whole post is a pile of error filled manure, but it lubricates the minds the those that really know.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Dec 31, 2022, 3:48:30 AM (22 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 3:24:00 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> I do not mind BWR's antagonistic and error filled post in my thread, for sometimes a physics bullshiters post in the King of Science thread "lubricates" other physics bullshiters to the disgust of those that really know physics, and that disgust causes them to fill in some facts and knowledge that AP is unaware of. So, well, make use of bullshiters like BWR. They could cause a insight from others.
>
> Well, I cannot seem to find BWR "bwr fml" last failure fiasco in full, just snippets, which probably tells me that bwr deleted his original post, concerning the force of gravity. So I post bwr full post below in case he tries to delete it. In the prior bwr fiasco, BWR always draws together a muddled and error filled post for BWR only intent is to smear discredit AP. BWR is a physics failure, for in his April or late March post about why AP lithium battery drone will not fly to the Space Station, according to BWR, it lacks the total energy. But then the calculations by BWR is ESCAPE VELOCITY, rockets blasting off. A drone battery machine is not blasting off to get to ISS but simply "stepping its way to ISS". In the case of Earth+Moon trekking out to Mars orbit is another case of "stepping into a new orbit, not blasting to Mars".
>

Now, no doubt the most valuable chapter in this book will be the chapter that explains how the force of gravity works and why I can us the data of momentum to run a feasibility of mechanics of motion of planets once collided.

Let me get started on that now.

Old Physics and laymen thought of gravity in terms of a object_1 moving with momentum a straightline trek in space and then encountering a massive object_2 yon hinder and that massive object_2 pulling on the object_1, much like a magnet of attraction pulling on it.

Old Physics and laymen then thought of the object_1 as veering off course from its straightline trajectory once it gets close to the massive object_2.

In Old Physics and laymen they then viewed this picture as the massive object_2 pulling on object_1 and coined the phrase of General Relativity (a fake theory) of "mass bends space, and objects in that bent space follow the curvature of bent space".

Now, well, what does AP with his --all is electricity and magnetism-- in the AP-EM equations paint a picture of gravity. A picture that allows me to use Momentum to reckon with force of gravity.

So in the New Physics view, we have the Sun and the Sun has a Magnetic field and in that magnetic field are paths of strong magnetism and between these pathes of strong magnetism is weak magnetism. Sort of like a high and low points of magnetism. And these pathes are circular or ellipse but not too far from circular. Picture it as a series of round highways with almost empty magnetism in between the strong magnetism.

But the Sun not only does magnetic paths but does electric current and Electric Field. The Sun shoots electric current in those magnetic pathes.

So now, let us picture the Sun and Earth bound by gravity. Earth and all the other planets are in a "strong magnetic path", and between those pathes is weak magnetism, not able to support a planet locked in orbit.
So Earth is in a strong magnetic path of the Sun and so is Mars, but between Earth and Mars is weak magnetism, unable to make a circular path.

Now, the Sun shots out electric current in what is called a Electric field and these currents are closed loop circuits where a current from the Sun zaps Earth from the rear end of Earth pushing Earth forward in motion in the magnetic path, but simultaneously, the Sun electric current of Electric field is zapping Earth in front of its forward motion and pulling Earth in that magnetic path. So the Earth is bound by gravity to the Sun, because the Sun created a magnetic path, strong path and the Sun pushes Earth forward from the rear of the Earth by electric current simultaneously pulling Earth forward from the front of Earth by this same electric current of Electric field. What in chemistry is called the Electromotive Force -- push and the Electromotive Induction --- to pull.

So, well, in Old Physics, they never divided up Space as being magnetic pathways and electricity pushing and pulling objects to make gravity.

This is why AP can use Momentum to figure out if Moon rams into Earth, that Earth takes a slow march out to the orbit of Jupiter where it then can be in a strong magnetic field path and get zapped from in front and in rear simultaneously in its new orbit.

Perhaps, Earth+Moon, when near Jupiter, becomes a satellite of Jupiter.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

Yes in Chemistry it is called Potential Difference and ElectroMotive Force EMF and Electromagnetic Induction. Those in New Physics see those 3 as all concepts of the idea of the Sun pushing Earth from the rear, a push as Electromotive Force, then the pull in front of Earth as Potential Difference and as Electromagnetic Induction.

But once the planet Earth is pushed out of its magnetic field path by the Moon colliding into Earth, the Moon+Earth joined planet would wander to the next magnetic field path which is Mars, then Asteroid belt and then is Jupiter's magnetic field path.

Earth and Moon would wander almost in a straightline until it found another magnetic field path of the Sun where the path would guide Earth+Moon and once again the electric currents would push and pull on Earth+Moon.

Now the average orbital speed of Earth+Moon would be the vector sum of 30Km/sec + 1Km/sec = 31Km/sec. If we look at the average orbital speed of Venus we have 35Km/sec, and Mercury is 47Km/sec.

So here we have to ask the question, can Earth+Moon make it to Venus or Mercury with its momentum of 31km/sec???? The answer is no, that Earth+Moon have not the momentum the energy to make it to that orbit.

On the other hand, Earth+Moon can make it to the Mars orbit or better yet, the Jupiter orbit.

So now, this is difficult to see and understand in Old Physics, who have always looked upon gravity as a constant "pulling in". They could not see gravity as a "denier", gravity as telling Earth+Moon-- we do not want you so stay outside of Venus's orbit.

We have always looked upon gravity as all accepting and pulled inward.

But in gravity, it is also a denial of occupancy of a orbit.

I have to check back on old astronomy data. Whether the spacecraft going to Venus and Mercury, needed extra energy, compared to spacecraft heading for Mars or Jupiter. I seem to recall they needed more energy to get the craft to Mercury and Venus. And if true is splendid confirmation of magnetic field pathes formed by the Sun's gravity.

You see, in New Physics we treat all forces as electricity and magnetism, and nothing else.

AP

Yes indeed, it takes more energy to get to Mercury, than to get to Pluto. It is because gravity is like stairs to the Sun. To get close to the Sun, you are fighting the magnetic field and the electric field that is working against you. While going from Earth to Mars or Jupiter or Pluto, gravity is working for you, as you descent from the stairs. This is simply seen in the fact that orbital speeds are greatest near the Sun and fall off as you go away from the Sun.

Google search of spacecraft to mercury needed more energy
About 35,400,000 results (0.45 seconds)
Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
But the spacecraft must also avoid overshooting, which would cause it to skim the Sun in a comet-like orbit. Because of these complexities, it takes eight times more energy — and several years longer — to travel to Mercury than to Mars.Oct 15, 2018

All systems go for second-ever mission to enter Mercury's orbithttps://www.nature.com › news

Why does it take so long to get to Mercury? - ESAhttps://www.esa.int › Space_Science › BepiColombo
The energy our spacecraft needs to shed is on a completely different scale to using brakes to slow down while driving downhill on Earth. Arriving at Mercury ...

Missions to Mercury - ESA Science & Technologyhttps://sci.esa.int › web › bepicolombo › 56015-mission...
Mar 30, 2020 — The most energy efficient method to reach Mercury is to take advantage of the gravitational pull of Venus.

Every mission to Mercury ever | The Planetary Societyhttps://www.planetary.org › space-missions › every-mer...
It actually takes more energy for a spacecraft to reach Mercury than Pluto. Mercury is the fastest-orbiting planet in our solar system — it blazes around ...

Mercury - NASA Solar System Explorationhttps://solarsystem.nasa.gov › planets › exploration
The first spacecraft to visit Mercury was NASA's Mariner 10, which imaged about 45% of the surface. NASA's MESSENGER spacecraft flew by Mercury three times and ...

BepiColombo's Path: Why Does It Take So Long to Get to ...https://www.space..com › News › Spaceflight
Oct 20, 2018 — All told, the spacecraft will expend more energy than it would trying to reach Pluto, which resides over near the edge of the solar system.

BepiColombo: Joint Mission to Mercury - Space.comhttps://www.space.com › References › Spaceflight
Sep 1, 2021 — Hot and more difficult for an orbiter to reach than Saturn, the planet long eluded scientists. BepiColombo, a joint mission of the European ...

Seven-year mission to Mercury ready for ambitious launchhttps://www.cnn.com › 2018/10/19 › health › mercury-be...
Oct 20, 2018 — BepiColombo, a $1.8 billion joint mission between the European and Japanese space agencies, will have to fire xenon gas constantly from two of ...

Europe blasts off to Mercury – here's the rocket sciencehttps://theconversation.com › europe-blasts-off-to-merc...
Oct 18, 2018 — It will take more energy to get the BebiColombo spacecraft inro a stable orbit around Mercury than it would to send it all the way to Pluto.

Two spacecraft are embarking on a seven-year journey to ...https://www.theverge.com › 2018/10/19 › esa-jaxa-bepi...
Oct 19, 2018 — Tonight, Europe and Japan are set to launch a joint spacecraft that will travel more than seven years to one of the least-explored places in ...

On 1/1/2023 2:06 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Yes indeed, it takes more energy to get to Mercury, than to get to Pluto. It is because gravity is like stairs to the Sun. To get close to the Sun, you are fighting the magnetic field and the electric field that is working against you. While going from Earth to Mars or Jupiter or Pluto, gravity is working for you, as you descent from the stairs. This is simply seen in the fact that orbital speeds are greatest near the Sun and fall off as you go away from the Sun.
[...]

Bob Lazar mentioned how a craft needs to phase shift the wave when it
gets near a natural large source of mass. Like a planet, or a star.

And the point of the story is ...... ?

On 1/1/2023 8:27 AM, Augǝl wrote:
> And the point of the story is ...... ?

The point is that poor AP, having lost the rest of his marbles, is
pretending to be an engineer who thinks he can play billiards with the
planets.

On 1/1/2023 11:23 AM, Augǝl wrote:
> You really intelligent. You know it Yourself too ? Foolish question a little bit, yes ? Here are so intelligent people, that it makes me cry.

Nuke the gay moon bears you dildo farting lunatic.

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀